Very comprehensive coverage. Thanks!

Scalar Weapons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PFkd4biDg

For anyone still “on the fence” about weather modification / manipulation
http://www.dutchsinse.com/blog/?p=660

Hey, Tra La La La La, did you ever figure out how 'weather modification//manipulation' and 'scalar weapons' account for accelerating ocean acidification, which the scientific evidence indicates is caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels?

How is it anyone bringing up haarp tech back in the IPCC fraud days, was treated like a conspiracy nut, while it was actually conspiracy fact? Not one answer to it at the time. It was indeed one question that was dodged with BS answers like oh it's classified. Those were not answers, they were cover-up's. In fact you won't even acknowledge the information presented to you now.

HAARP Denier meet CO2 Denier.

Look at the bright side, you wanted us to believe in man made global warming, Now we do, just not the way you thought we would. e.g. from the tailpipe vs. from manipulating the ionosphere.

Any chance of us paying for it willingly knowing the truth? None. Why would we, it's like living under lords and kings. I'd rather they died. But there's a good chance the continued false science, man made global warming from the tailpipe, will be slipped in step by rotten step, by corrupt officials who care more about money and re-election than the constitution or damage from manipulating the ionosphere with technology hidden from the public.

So just like everything else fake, it will be a fake hidden tax and laws following agenda 21, clamping down on the rights of people, instead of public oversight of the real technology really causing it.

You still wonder why I don't care about CO2? Don't kid yourself, while CO2 still can't be proven as the culprit, people now are showing science fact, about where the next HIT will be from HAARP technology. So every time they turn that equipment on, it costs us up to a trillion in damage, on top of the fake tax to fix a fake problem, all to be paid to who again?

Seems I am not the only one in denial.

line in the sand. Shall we continue? I mean I'm willing to study acidity in the pond, if your willing to study when haarp technology is operational and what frequency and power and duration it's operating at.

But your not willing to discus this.

So you haven't looked at ocean acidification yet, but you're absolutely certain that the research you've done so far is sufficient to completely override the basic physics of solar radiation.

Do you have any links to any data that correlate or even illuminate a HAARP influence with any empirical field data from any of the other multiple lines of evidence beyond atmospheric concentration of CO2?

You falsely characterize my response to you as 'not willing to disucss this'. To be clear, it makes no difference to me what you believe in --- I am only interested in the quality of the data.

Asking you for links to verifiable scientific data is just the first step in discussing any influences that might be at play in the multiple lines of evidence observed in Earth's interdependent systems.

TraLaLa said:

"back in the IPCC fraud days, was treated like a conspiracy nut, while it was actually conspiracy fact?"

What "IPCC fraud days"?

Also looking forward to your response to Desi's polite reply to your concerns. Not sure why you feel attacking her are the best way to present your case, but to each their own, I guess.

Everyone was arguing about hocky sticks, those IPCC fraud days. While your welcome to re-define this description of the time period in your own words, your not going to change the topic outright. It's the TIME PERIOD I am concerned with. I brought up haarp technology back then and nobody on the web would address it, just deflect it.

I haven't posted scientific data.
He has. Go Read, Go Learn.
http://www.dutchsinse.com/blog/?p=660

You've got your whole show on green, I had but one post. Perhaps #3 can explain her conclusion? I've made my conclusion pretty clear, haarp technology is being used as a weapon. Weapons kill people RIGHT NOW. That's what I argue.

If Des says, CO2 and the pond acidity is a side effect of weapon usage, I think it doesn't matter one bit when you get right down to it as people are dying right now. That's what I argue. Maybe she was going right along with me? I'm not sure, as I am now on the defense, accused of attacking Des. And further clouding things up, with having to address two sets of loaded questions at the same time.

It's not haarp, it's haarp technology, or more than one ionospheric weapon, and not to be lumped in with scalar weapons either which are different science, separate.

kind of like

"It's election fraud, not voter fraud" Kapish?
I knew you'd instantly get it. Re-read, and file it in your brilliant mind.

Now put your self in my shoes, I find what looks like haarp technology being used as a weapon, by someone who has followed weather since he was five, I bring this to the green news report thread, to get some input, but find myself defending what I found instead. Stuffed into the CO2 Denier box. Fine I'll take that box. I think there is climate change, global warming, global cooling, whatever it's called these days, global starvation. But, If I didn't put two and two together, I might think the same entity are behind haarp technology so they can both create the problems and profit from them. It's no longer a theory for me. In that light, it's an expensive switch they turn on and bombard us with. 20 Billion to a trillion every time they turn it on plus the deaths. That's unsustainable. Or it's forced population reduction. Or maybe they are trying to shove the Fukushima radiation out 200 miles into space? I don't know the details, because there is no public oversight. Kind of like elections. I'm sure you agree.

I don't hear you denying this as a possibility, and I still haven't heard you take a side about who profits from agenda 21. Of course I don't follow your blog regularly these days either, so maybe You have. But you haven't with me. I don't even want to be here if I have to defend against you. I think of you as a truth seeker. Was I wrong?

So, I have to ask, where do you really stand about profits on C02 are going? Where do you stand on agenda 21? Where do you stand on the haarp technology being used as a weapon. Where do you stand on the possibility someone is behind both "the cause of" and "the profit of" earthquakes, and weather disasters et. al.

Get what I'm getting at, or shall we go round and round some more in a negative downward spiral?

For the record I did visit the link DES posted. I said I would and I did, and now I re-visit it. Shall I drop my point and focus on the arguments in the threads I see on her links? That stuff is over my head, I can't prove or disprove any of it. I can however see others who appear to understand it and disagree. I can understand electricity, electronics, transmitters, I can understand bouncing RF, I can understand anyone who can control the FCC and has the money pit to buy a bunch of RF transmitters can start experimenting and manipulating the ionosphere. Even if they don't know what they are doing. So that science I get. If it operates at 3E8 I get it mostly, I don't get endless historical data, and going from thing to thing, arguing about samples buried in the earth, never really covering all possibilities like magnetic, solar, electronic, rf. I guess I just don't see how my farts can cause a problem in a 70MPH wind. Or a car for that matter.

I already am green. Probably more than you. From lightweight servers, to LED bulbs to CFL's. There are problems with all this green stuff. CFL's are poison bad, LED's are expensive bad, and the servers are a pain in the ass to setup on embedded low watt use scenarios.

I like to cut right to the center of it all.

If you can do that, we can get along. If not you'll need to ban me for asking the wrong questions. I am sour. I have been shunned. I don't like being called a conspiracy nut, when pointing out conspiracy fact. If that's what you think I was doing when you accuse me of attack Des, then there really is no hope for you.

I have nothing against DES. But I won't stand for gate keeping truth either.

My post #2 was meant for You and the Public to go visit, and decide for yourself. Not to be argued, whittled down, and have my account destroyed as a troll.

TraLaLa @ 8 said:

Everyone was arguing about hocky sticks, those IPCC fraud days.

I see. The days that deniers were claiming "fraud" where apparently there is none at all. Okay. Why don't we call it the Climate Denier Fraud days, just so it's more clear.

I've made my conclusion pretty clear, haarp technology is being used as a weapon. Weapons kill people RIGHT NOW. That's what I argue.

Ooookay. Even if we stipulate you are correct there, what exactly does that have to do with climate change? If you are suggesting that climate change is caused by HAARP, then you'll need to respond to Desi's query asking how it leads to ocean acidification. If you don't believe climate change is caused by HAARP, then the question is, what does your concern about HAARP have to do with the subjects discussed in this blog item?

If Des says, CO2 and the pond acidity is a side effect of weapon usage, I think it doesn't matter one bit when you get right down to it as people are dying right now. That's what I argue.

Of course, I don't believe she has said that, and I don't believe the burden is on her to do that, anymore than it would be if someone showed up here to say that Major League Baseball was the cause of climate change and ocean acidification. It seems it would be up to the person making the charge to present the evidence, links to the science, etc.

If your argument is "people are dying because of HAARP!", then that's fine, but unless you are suggesting it is also the cause of climate change, it doesn't seem to be the appropriate thread for that argument.

Where your argument counters the idea that global warming is due to the unfettered and unprecedented relase of carbon into the atmosphere due to the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels and is caused, somehow, by HAARP instead, it seems, again, the burden is on your to offer the evidence for that charge.

If you don't wish to present evidence, and simply wish to make the claim for some reason, that's up to you. But you'll forgive Desi and/or myself if we feel the argument hijacks the thread and sidetracks from its main topic of concern.

So, I have to ask, where do you really stand about profits on C02 are going?

I'd prefer to see a carbon tax, in which case, "profits" would go to the federal government to pay off our debt, etc. That, however, is not politically feasible, it seems, so the idea of a cap and trade market was proposed as the more palatable alternative for Republicans. While imperfect, it would hopefully accomplish the same thing. Unfortunately, they have now backed away from that as well (largely because Dems joined in favor, and because the Rs are controlled entirely by the Fossil Fuel Companies.)

But no, I don't believe the entire thing is a profit making scam, ala the claims of Alex Jones' et al, if that's what you're asking.

Where do you stand on agenda 21?

I don't know the full details of the UN's Agenda 21 (having not read it), but from what I understand it to be, no, the effort does not concern me as to some sort of worldwide scam. If you'd like to enlighten me about your concerns about it, I'll be happy to read them.

Where do you stand on the haarp technology being used as a weapon.

I don't know enough about the allegations to offer you an opinion, frankly.

Where do you stand on the possibility someone is behind both "the cause of" and "the profit of" earthquakes, and weather disasters et. al.

I have not come across evidence that I find to be particular convincing, but again, as noted above, it is not an area I have deeply explored. As I can't cover everybody's theories, in detail, everywhere, I respect those who are working on each, and look forward to the evidence supporting their findings. If I am convinced, great. If I am not, also great. Doesn't mean I'm either right or wrong, and I encourage all avenues of investigative study.

If you can do that, we can get along. If not you'll need to ban me for asking the wrong questions.

We do not do that. Perhaps you are thinking of another website.

I have nothing against DES. But I won't stand for gate keeping truth either.

We do not do that either. If you are accusing her of doing so, I think your accusation is without merit. You have posted here whatever you like. And plenty of it. And I take the accusation quite seriously, as perhaps you've noticed.

My post #2 was meant for You and the Public to go visit, and decide for yourself. Not to be argued, whittled down, and have my account destroyed as a troll.

Look. People are welcome to post their opinions here on any manner of things. We have among the most open commenting policy on the Internets. We don't even require free registration. Just post away and follow the few simple rules we have published. But if you think others are not entitled to respond to your points, and ask you to defend them, you are likely misguided. Your feet may be held to the same fire that mine and everyone elses are. If you don't like that idea, then YOU are being a gate keeper and YOU are "banning" others "for asking the wrong questions."

This insane argument with accusations are over.

Read the information I shared with you in #2. Or don't, I don't care.

Tra la la, please review my comment on another thread.

The HAARP article you linked to does not support the conclusions you offer.

Tra La La La La, I responded to your comments here on the other thread.

Ocean acidification is only one line of empirical evidence (among many) for which skeptics & outright deniers seem to have no credible explanation that could account for the observed changes, whether via HAARP or something else.

As always, the excellent site Skeptical Science is useful for those who are genuinely interested in furthering their understanding of the scientific evidence.